Friday, September 30, 2005

Here's a good explanation of the possible scenarios coming out of the Red Sox/Yankees and White Sox/Indians series this weekend. Also check out my article on THT on the White Sox winning the pennant in April.

Let me know if you think the graph format I'm using there is confusing. My intent was to get more information in one graph rather than post several graphs.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Well, the Rockies 2005 season is at an end and so I thought I'd share my observations about the 2005 version and look forward to 2006.

First, here's the season summary in one graph.

Quick primer: The blue line tracks the winning percentage during the season while the purple line shows the pythagorean winning percentage (calculated based on the the ratio of runs scored to runs allowed. Both of these curves use the Y-Axis on the left side of the graph. The light blue line and the green line represent the cumulative runs scored per game and the runs allowed per game on each day of the season. Both of those curves use the Y-Axis on the right.

What this graph indicates is that the pitching out of the gate was so terrible (they gave up 10 or more runs in 5 of the first 9 games) that the Rockies dug themselves a hole (1-9 on April 16th) that turned out to be too large to dig out of. It also shows that their pitching continued to improve during the season as the Kim's (Byun-Yun and Sunny) stabilized the rotation and Brian Fuentes and company pitched better in the bullpen. The helped them to improve from 24-48 on June 22nd to play essentially .500 baseball the rest of the way, which as it turns out, in their division would have been more than enough to contend in September.

As for the players I'll focus mostly on the young guns, Gen-R as the Rockies PR department says, the Rockies will be counting on for next season...

Clint Barmes - Barmes started out hot with a game-winning homerun on opening day off of Trevor Hoffman and continued to be so until he was placed on the DL June 7th with a fractured left clavicle. After returning from the injury he hit poorly as his average dipped under .300.

My observation of Barmes makes me wonder if he'll really be a major league hitter. The only pitch he can drive is a fastball down and in and often gets jammed, hitting broken bat dribblers to the right side. He's also not at all patient (just 16 walks in 333 at bats) although Clint Hurdle continued to bat him leadoff long after he had shown he wasn't suited for it. He'll also be 27 on opening day 2006 and so it's not likely he'll improve greatly.

In the field Barmes is below average (-6 runs above average according to Baseball Prospectus) and his arm is more like David Eckstein's than Khalil Greene. In short, I think the Rockies should keep looking.

Corey Sullivan - Sullivan didn't get much playing time early but after the Wilson deal and the injury to Larry Bigbie he was installed in centerfield and responded by hitting well over .300 in the final two months. His patience also improved as the season went on.

At the plate opposing pitcher would pitch him in, in, in and early on he would swing at everything inside off the plate and usually miss (he's struck out 78 times in 360 at bats). Later in the year teams didn't seem to pitch him quite the same way and Sullivan was able to take the outside pitch and slap it into left field for hits.

His defense is above average and so he'd make a decent fourth outfielder but I certainly wouldn't want him in the starting lineup in 2006. He'll be 26 on opening day 2006.

Matt Holliday - After being hurt much of the first half of the season Holliday came on in the second half and has led the league in RBIs with 59. Overall, he's the player that consistently hits the ball the hardest on the Rockies and the ball seems to jump off his bat. His weaknesses are his lack of patience in general (just 36 walks in 460 at bats but better patience down the stretch) and particularly his seeming need to chase sliders low and away, a weakness, I might add that opposing pitchers regularly exploit. If he can develop some patience and make pitchers come to him, he'll be a force to be reckoned with as he just hits pitches in the strike zone.

Of course, as with any Rockies hitter it's difficult to know how good he really is since his home line (.357/.409/.593) is so much better than his road line (.257/.316/.414). Still, he came from a long way back in his road numbers and so I would certainly expect the Rockies to give him every opportunity to become a hitting star.

His defense is poor to say the least. He often gets bad jumps and his arm is nothing to brag about. He'll be 26 at the beginning of next season.

Garrett Atkins - Atkins was the most consistent of the rookie class and was the RBI leader for much of the season. He ended with respectable numbers with a good August and September but a horrible road line (.234/.302/.347) and so it remains to be seen if he'll really be competent at the major league level. His problem is that he doesn't really hit with enough isolated power to hold down a position so far to the left of the defensive spectrum and his approach at the plate doesn't give one confidence that his power will improve. Still, next year he'll be just 24 and so there's certainly room for growth.

In the field he's far from outstanding and BP rates him at 13 runs below average.

Brad Hawpe - Hawpe had a pretty good season despite battling through injuries. He hasn't yet shown the power that everyone talks about (in fact he hit 4 homeruns in his first 50 at bats and then just 5 more the rest of the way) but like Atkins at 25, he has the time to improve. He was better than most of the other Rockies on the road (.259/.350/.393) and showed a good deal of patience (37 walks in 267 at bats). He was also very good in field racking up 11 assists in just half a season. Like Holliday, I think perhaps Hawpe can be an integral part of the future.

Luis Gonzales and Aaron Miles - I've included Miles in this discussion since he plays the same position as Gonzales although I don't view him as a part of the future since he's older. That said, my view is that Gonzales is the better and younger (26 to 28 for Miles) player and so should be looked at as the incumbent as the Rockies head to Spring Training next year.

In short, Gonzales, while not patient, has more power and can hit the ball with authority whereas Miles neither walks (7 in over 300 at bats) nor has any extra base hit power. The problem with Gonzales is that he hasn't shown he can hit right handed pitching well while he rakes lefties. Gonzales also hit much better on the road than Miles so it seems more likely that his numbers reflect real talent.

BP rates them both above average at second base although Gonzales is more versatile and can play both short and third.

J.D. Closser and Danny Ardoin - The Rockies soured on the 25 year-old Closser pretty early when he hit .170 in April and .205 in May and so GM Dan O'Dowd tried to land a catching prospect at the trade deadline only to be stiffed by the Red Sox and left holding the bag with Larry Bigbie in it. The Rockies owners have also publicly stated that they're looking for a catcher for next season as well. So that pretty much sums up his chances in 2006. In short, his walk rate isn't bad but he hits very poorly left-handed at .209/.307/.352 (he's a switch hitter). He's also a brutal fielder and threw out just 10 of 62 runners.

Ardoin on the other hand is good defender but an even worse hitter although final two months he picked it up a little. He's also pretty old at 31 and could be usable as a backup catcher because of his defense. He threw out 22 of 45 runners.

As an aside, here's something strange. Clint Hurdle would often pinch hit for Ardoin in the late innings with Closser during the second half of the season. I found this strange since he often had Jorge Piedra on the bench, a much better hitter (6 homeruns in 112 at bats), but it almost seemed like he felt the need to switch catcher for catcher for some reason. Closser as a pinch hitter isn't really much better than Ardoin.

It was a great interview as Jeff discussed the secrets to Leo's success which he attributed to:

1. His throwing program inherited from his mentor Johnny Sain where Braves pitchers throw off the mound twice between starts whereas other teams have them throw once. The program was also adopted organization-wide by Bobby Cox when Mazzone first joined the Braves. I liked this quote from the original article.

"The throwing program is based on common sense. I don't think it's that big a deal, but you'd be amazed how people can't understand. Somebody told me one time that you can't do that because pitchers would break down late in the year. I asked him what he did. And he said that his pitchers played catch in the outfield. And I said, 'Well, explain the difference between playing catch in the outfield and playing catch on a mound when you're only 60 feet, six inches from your target.' He said, 'Well, they had a tendency to throw too hard.' I told him, 'That's what the hell they pay you for, to regulate the effort.'"

2. Stability. The fact that Cox, GM John Schuerholz, and Mazzone have been together for so long that it makes for a very stable environment. Mazzone also plans the rotation 40 days in advance and so a pitcher being taken out of the rotation is not typically based on a single start. I often wonder why teams don't make it a point to introduce stability. They seem to change managers and coaches often based only on won-loss record when their real problem is bad players. Change for the sake of change. Perhaps some commitment to a coaching staff's philosophy (or a coaching staff that implements the organizational philosophy per the A's and Red Sox) for an extended period of time might pay dividends. Seems to work for the teams that have tried it.

3. The fact that Mazzone is great at understanding a pitcher's mechanics when he's going well and getting back to that when he's not. Although Mazzone wasn't discussed in any detail in Bill Shanks book Scout's Honor (which I reviewed here), the need to have a coach who understands that every pitcher is not him was brought out in the book in the section where Shanks profiled Ken Dayley. The Braves pitching coach at the time was Bob Gibson who was trying to make every pitcher into a Gibson clone rather than helping them do what they do better. Gibson didn't last long and Dayley I think attributed some of his struggles to Gibson's "teaching".

He also mentions J.C. Bradbury analysis (of Sabernomics fame) of Mazzone, the links to which you can find here. As quoted in the article Bradbury has concluded that "working with Leo shaves off between .55 and .85 points of a pitcher's ERA." Great stuff.

Sunday, September 25, 2005

I've gotten a variety of reactions on my article on Barry Bonds. While most have been very positive I wanted to address some of the issues that readers have brought up. And BTW, thanks for writing and please keep it up.

Why did you include Kimbery Bell?I had considered whether I should even include the sentence on Bell but I ended up putting it in there with the intention of saying something like "and here's another problem for Bonds". It came across as using her as some sort of evidence but of course she's got a huge motive to be lying (not the least of which is simple revenge) and so I don't consider her allegations as definitive of anything. Her inclusion doesn't impact my argument since my conclusion that he knowningly used steroids is based on his relationship with Anderson, not on anything Bell said.

Does Barry still belong in the Hall of Fame? What about Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro and others in the "lively player era"?I guess I would say that even if Bonds is shown to have knowingly used steroids he still deserves to be in, not because baseball didn't have any rules in place against the use of steroids, but rather because of what he did pre 2000. He was already a Hall of Famer with 445 career homeruns, three MVPs, eight Gold Gloves, and on and on. Perhaps he should have to wait a few years as a sort of penalty for bad behavior but he certainly deserves to be inducted. However, had it been shown that he was using steriods for the majority of his career then he wouldn't be deserving and shouldn't be voted in because his performance was so tainted as not to be a reliable indicator of Hall of Fame talent.

Incidentally, this is the same stance I have on Pete Rose. He was a Hall of Fame player and so deserves induction. However, when he gambled on baseball he forfeited the right to be inducted on the first ballot and should have to wait awhile.

As a result I don't think the standard for not being is as simple as failing one or more drug tests but rather the conclusion of history based on information that comes out over time. That's why the five-year waiting period is important and becomes more so as those like McGwire and Bonds retire.

The same argument is in effect for McGwire and Palmeiro. In the case of McGwire his testimony before Congress this spring ("I'm not here to talk about the past") to me indicated that he used much more than andro and probably did since early in his career. If that's ever shown more definitively then he doesn't deserve induction at all, with or without a waiting period for bad behavior. I say that because without his 1996-1999 seasons he's clearly not a Hall of Famer. Palmeiro was also clearly a Hall of Famer before his positive test and so should be inducted as well unless it's shown (aside from Jose Canseco's book, which, despite everything's that come out, still don't take that much stock in) he had a history of using steroids over many years.

Isn't Bonds innocent until proven guilty? Isn't it just a case of guilt by association?I guess for me the probability that he knowingly used and benefited from steroids far outweighs the probability that the stats, science, and circumstance I mentioned in the article are just coincidences.

He's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law but that doesn't mean rational people like you and I can't come to our own opinions given what we know. We do that everyday on a variety of issues.

Since even if Bonds was taking steroids from 1999-2002 he wasn't doing anything illegal since baseball had no policy, how can you criticize him?It is absolutely correct that technically Barry wasn't breaking a baseball rule. The dullness of the owners, a weak commissioner, a recalcitrant players union, and a failure of the media and fans to call for accountability all conspired to ensure that testing was not implemented sooner and when it was it was ineffective. That of course is an article in itself and there is a great exploration of it in Bryant's book.

That said, steroids were and are illegal and more importantly the use of them is clearly unethical as there have been debates going on about them in sports for 30 plus years. That leaves today's athletes no moral or ethical wiggle room.

I also don't buy the argument that professional athletes should be held to a different standard than Olympic athletes merely because they’re professional, and therefore it is their job is to maximize performance. If anything, they should take it more seriously and understand the legal, moral, and health issues better than amateurs.

Why did you single out Bonds instead of focusing on the hundreds of other players or the baseball establishment itself?My focus on Bonds was the result of my reaction to his 704th homerun. That reaction stems from the fact that it is Bonds whose statistics will impact the record books more than any other player of his era and have a lasting effect on the statistics we used to communicate about the game. I also mentioned 583 and 70 in my article as two more tainted numbers put up by Mark McGwire. I'm saddened in the same way about those numbers.

As to the baseball establishment I'm left without words to how negligant they've been. The ongoing war between the owners and players served to effectively quash this issue when it should have been fully discussed after the strike. The illogical and totally unreasonable stance of Donald Fehr and the player's union on privacy grounds ensured that nothing would be done. That was even after 5-7% of the players tested positive in a test that was easily beatable. Who know what the real numbers were. As it turned out only the threat of action by Congress got the parties as far as they've gotten.

That said, my article was about the stats and Bonds but certainly baseball deserves plenty of critcism.

Friday, September 23, 2005

My latest article has been published on THT. It discusses the return of Barry Bonds and how, in my humble opinion, it is overwhelmingly likely that he knowingly used steroids and benefited from them, and how as a result his assault on Ruth and Aaron is a sad and oh so permanent reminder of the "lively player era" (as George Will calls it).

I was listening to Dan Patrick's ESPN radio show yesterday and heard Bonds' comments to reporters when asked about steroids while in Washington to play the Nats. Patrick was right that Barry continues to try and put up smokescreens in order to avoid answering questions - first by bringing his son into it in spring training and now by inserting Katrina victims into the picture and asking reporters how much they've donated. It's pathetic.

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Just getting set to score my last game of the season for MLB.com on a cool and breezy day in Denver where the Rockies will host the Padres. With last night's 5-2 win, the Padres moved to 76-75 and remained 5 games in front of the Giants in the western division.

Last night rookie Mike Esposito made his major league debut for the Rockies and pitched 5 decent innings giving up 7 hits and 3 runs. He was pretty aggressive in the strike zone I thought although he ended up walking 3. Jake Peavy was very sharp and although the Rockies weren't that far behind most of the game, it just didn't look they would have a chance.

That makes it 19 different rookies who have played for the Rox this season which ties the Dodgers. That is the Rockies franchise record.

Overall, the Rockies have had by far the most games played by rookies this season:

Colorado 869Atlanta 676Dodgers 607Kansas City 499San Francisco 451

Of course the Dodgers, Braves, and Giants weren't exactly planning to have to rely on rookies as much as the Rockies were but of course we know how well the Braves rookies have played overall with Jeff Francouer leading the way.

The most interesting play of last night's game was when rookie Corey Sullivan chose to slide into the catcher Ramon Hernandez who was actually behind the plate trying to field a throw in the first inning when trying to score on a Todd Helton double, instead of taking a more direct route and using a hook slide or a head first slide using his hand. It was bizarre and Sullivan was called out since he never actually reached the plate. That turned out to be the Rockies best chance to get to Peavy who then shut them down until the 8th.

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Well, actually another Brooks Kieschnick. Steve Turner brought to my attention the career of Willie Smith in reference to my article on Ankiel, who pitched 21.7 innings for the Detroit Tigerss in 1963, and in 1964 pitched 31.7 innings for the Los Angeles Angels and played 87 games in the outfield hitting .301/.317/.465 in 359 at bats. He gave up pitching in 1965 and was a regular for the Angels hitting .261/.308/.423 in 136 games. After that it was all downhill and he retired after playing in 31 games for the Reds in 1971.

He fell under my radar of 50 games pitched but he did make the transition at the major league level.

Friday, September 16, 2005

Also, make your plans to pre-orderThe Hardball Times Baseball Annual 2006. There will be plenty of excellent articles from the THT writers as well as guest essays by the likes of Bill James among others. There's also lots of stats of course and even some new data on balls in play outcomes for you to peruse.

I was originally interested in the book because my knowledge of Roman history was very limited outside of the first century CE which intersects with the New Testament. In fact, my formal school exposure to any period before that is probably relegated to reading Shakespeare's Julius Caesar in seventh grade - which I didn't like and remember only because of Shakespeare's anachronistic insertion of a clock tower and chime which didn't begin to appear until the early to mid 14th century in Italy. And of course I knew almost nothing of Cicero (106-43 BCE) other than that some Christians like St. Jerome had referred to him an enlightened or "good pagan".

Anyway, I found the book thoroughly engaging and enjoyable. Everitt writes the book in a more or less chronological style with the exception of beginning the book at the fateful Ides of March. He then paints a picture of the Rome that Cicero was born into concentrating on the tumult in the before picking up the story of his early life in Arpinium 70 miles south of Rome.

Everitt then traces Cicero's rise an orator and lawyer centered around the spiritual, legal, and political center of the Roman Republic, the Forum before moving on to his climb up the political ladder and to his Consulship in January of 63 BC. As some of you may know, before the rise of Julius Caesar the Romans elected two Consuls each year to rule jointly. The Consuls would then usually be rewarded with a choice governorship somewhere in the empire in which he could line his pockets and recover the money he spent "campaigning" (which often consisted of bribing).

Although one would think that the Consulship would be highlight of a career and the apex of the book, Everitt spends most of the book on what happened after and Cicero's dealings with Pompey, Caesar, Mark Antony, and Cato through the end of the civil war in 46 BC and the death of Cicero three years later. I won't spoil it for you but the story is a fascinating one as it brings to the forefront the complexity and barbarity of Roman politics as well as the societal stability and political checks and balances we so take for granted in our form of government. Everitt mentions again and again how something as simple as the lack of a police force changes the entire political system as mobs of supporters would be free to intimidate voters into not voting and otherwise make life difficult for candidates trying to gain office.

At the same time I was struck by how many recognizable elements there were in Roman society to our own but also how different the thought patterns of the individuals must have been. The religious life was so deeply entwined with the public life that it is hard to envision how seriously or even if much of the ruling class actually believed in the collection of rituals, superstitions, and (to the post-enlightenment mind) simply bizarre ceremonies they engaged in. It was such that the Consul would/could declare bad omens that stopped public business (often used as a political device) and the Pontiff (the Pontifex Maximus, the chief religious official and authoritative predecessor of the Pope, a title held by Julius Caesar before the civil war) was in charge of populating the calendar with lucky (fastus) or unlucky (nefastus) days in which public business was interrupted. In one scene Everitt recounts how Cicero is trying to make a decision on a course of action and so of course he has his servants slaughter an animal and then hires someone to read the entrails in order to determine what he should do. To me, it's fascinating to try and conceive of how a person who believed in this superstition, or archaic theories of medicine and cosmology for example, thought and reasoned about even the most mundane matters. Probably too much "chronological snobbery" on my part as C.S. Lewis says but still interesting...

In the end Cicero is portrayed as a sympathetic figure who usually worked for the ideals of democracy and good government while not always having the courage of his convictions (unlike Cato who committed suicide rather than accept a form of pardon from Caesar). He's also painted as a man of his times who was not above sacrificing his convictions for financial gain from time to time.

Saturday, September 10, 2005

I would think that a team that was spouting the "small market mantra" as Ron says would develop some strategies that are successful for small market teams. Many have criticized Moneyball as simply a small market approach as in the book Scout's Honor but if it's successful then why wouldn't the Royals or other small market teams proactively try and emulate the A's?

I think Baird has done a good job of getting free or nearly free talent in the last couple years (Sisco, Huber, Bautista etc.) after screwing up big time his first couple years (Neifi, Tucker, Crosby, Griffin). That said, certainly one small market strategy is to try and develop a core of young players that mature at the same time so that you get a maximum window established before losing them to arbitration or free agency. Instead, what the Royals seem to be doing is rushing players that are too young, start their service clocks running, and then screw up their development (Costa, Bautista, Howell, Nunez, Gotay).

While I didn't really think that applied to Zack Greinke, now it would appear that he perhaps could also have used another year of seasoning. They also treat AAA as a wasteland where they send guys they don't think are prospects. I'm confused by what they're doing as well.

Their free agent signings haven't been anything to write home about either. And why are they spending another $1.35 million on soon to be 38 year-old Matt Stairs? They would be better off making sure they get Alex Gordon signed with that money (although it appears he'll sign anyway).

Awhile back I noted the progress of Cubs 2005 first round draft choice Matt Pawelek in the Arizona Fall League.

For those interested, he ended his stint in the AFL by pitching 43 innings in 14 games (13 starts) and giving up just 25 hits. He walked 21 and struck out 56 and did not allow a homerun. His 2.72 ERA earned him a promotion to the Boise Hawks where he started in one game and gave up 6 hits in 3 innings. Looking good thus far...

Cyril Morong he gave me permission to share a few more factoids related to his article on the White Sox and their offense.

I had remarked to him that I thought his stats on the number of low scoring games was very intriguing but mentioned that Dave Studeman had pointed out earlier this season that a team that consistently scores 4 or more runs and gets good pitching is going to win big time and that's just what the Sox had been doing through the end of June.

Cyril was then kind enough to share that:

"Through 131 games, last year the Sox had 83 games with 4 or more runs. This year it is 85. But last year, in the best 85 games, the Sox averaged 7.29 runs a game. This year, in the best 85 games, the Sox are averaging 6.22 runs a game. Last year, their 46 lowest games, the Sox averaged 1.65 runs a game. This year it is 1.72. So this year, when they have a low scoring game, they are only slightly better than last year. But they are much lower in high scoring games."

So it would seem that their run scoring distribution pattern has evened out a bit which helps to explain their 38-32 record since June 23rd. On June 20th they stood at 20-8 in one-run games and since have gone 10-8. Early on they played a tremendous number of one-run games and won them at a .714 clip. Both the frequency of the one-run games and the high winning percentage are tell-tale signs of good fortune rather than simply smart baseball.

They also remain six games ahead of their pythagorean record when they were five games ahead on June 20th. In other words, in the first 71 games of the season they won five more games that would have been expected and in the 70 games since they've essentially won the number of games you would expect given how many runs they've scored and how many they've given up.

Did they just get dumber or could it be that in the all too human need to identify a pattern of causation, the media latched onto an "explanation" that in the end was simply a ghost?

I was told by my friend Ron that Calvin Pickering was designated for assignment on Tuesday and is therefore off the Royals 40-man roster.

It's no secret that I've been a big fan of Pickering because of his ability to walk and mash the ball which he showed in AAA last year. This year he made the club out of spring training over Ken Harvey but was then sent back down after only 16 games and 27 at bats. Clearly he was horrible in those 27 at bats striking out 14 times but 16 games is not a real trial and it makes me wonder whether they brought him up more as a way to light a fire under Harvey than to really see what he could do.

Anyway, Pickering hit very poorly at Omaha in his first 50-100 at bats and at one point was 3 for 33 with 7 walks. He ended at .275 with 23 homeruns and 67 RBIs in 92 games. [Quick Rant: Why don't minor league teams keep their entire team's statistics on their web sites (or Baseball America for that matter)? Once a player is released or moved to another team his stats go away making it very hard to find out what he did at a different level? I can't wait for MLBAM to consolidate the minor league stats on their web site, hopefully they'll do a better job.]

At 28, Pickering could still be valuable off the bench for somebody who wants to take a chance on him. I think the Royals made a big mistake by not bringing him up early last year and seeing what he could really do when he was swinging the bat well. Instead he got just 140 major league plate appearances (and has still had only 280 or so in his career) and was not used regularly when he was up.

Monday, September 05, 2005

Perhaps I'm just being surly but here's something that bothers me. This weekend we went to a church where the pastor preached on Colossions 3:17-24 in which Paul lays down some rules for Christian households.

As is typical the pastor spent the time focusing on what men often do wrong and how they could be better husbands to their wives, in this instance by listing a few questions men could regularly ask their wives to keep the communication flowing. While I'm certainly a man who could use a few pointers, it gets tiring hearing only one side of the equation and I think it gives women the false impression that only men have to change their behavior and strive to "live at peace" with their spouse.

And of course the reason for this is that most men, pastors included, feel very uncomfortable being critical of any woman and more so in public. I just wish a pastor would for once give equal time to the other side or just not preach this passage.

Cyril's conclusion is that the Sox of 2005 have been successul because of their run prevention, not their stated attempt to create a more consistent offense that doens't rely on the homerun as much. In fact, this year:

"the Sox have scored 3 or fewer runs 46 times, while last year it was 48 times. That tiny difference might be due to luck. And if we look at games with 2 runs or less, the Sox actually have more this year (39 vs. 37)"

Cyril then went on to see if consistent teams actually do win more games than inconsistnet ones using a regression analysis. He found that they do but the difference is small in comparison to simply looking at the aggregate runs scored and runs allowed. His conclusion is that "consistency did not help explain a team’s winning pct very much and the most consistent teams did not win more than expected."

Saturday, September 03, 2005

Two weekends ago the Cubs made their annual trek to the Mile High City and my family and I made the most of it.

On Friday the game started at 3:05PM and I was scoring for MLB.com. Before the game in the press box I was hoping to run into Ron Santo in order to procure an autograph (I had brought a ball) but the closest I came was rubbing shoulders with his broadcast partner Pat Hughes in the cafeteria.

Mark Prior pitched for the Cubs and had excellent stuff from the start. He went on to pitch 6 strong innings, giving up two earned runs and striking out 10. What I found most interesting about the outing, however, was the way he continually nibbled at the corners with two strikes. He was ahead of most of the hitters but would end up with a lot of 2-2 and 3-2 counts after wasting a slider away in the dirt or trying to be too fine with his fastball. As a result he threw 118 pitches in those six innings. It seems to me he should trust his stuff a little more and be a bit more aggressive in going after hitters.

Kerry Wood pitched an impressive 8th inning striking out two while throwing 98 mph fastballs and 88 mph sliders. Pitching out of the stretch he looked much more in control of his body and didn't fall off the mound as he's prone to do from the windup. It's nice to see that his surgery was a success and so it looks as if he'll be back in the rotation in 2006.

On Saturday afternoon I headed to the SABR Rocky Mountain chapter meeting held from 12:30-3:30PM at a building down the street from Coors Field. It was the first meeting of this chapter I had attended since moving to the Front Range. Although the meeting was delayed by a mix-up that left the 20 or so attendees out on the street until almost 1PM, I had a good time.

The featured speaker was Rockies radio broadcaster Jeff Kingery who was very cordial and had prepared a bit for his talk. Kingery has been with the Rockies since the beginning and is the only original broadcaster remaining. He started by discussing how statistics do and don't translate to the radio by giving an example of how it would be difficult to discuss some of Todd Helton's accomplishments without simplifying by making comparisons to other players rather than reading off a list of numbers. Interestingly, in talking about Helton's big numbers he didn't allude at all to park effects which made me wonder how much or if that ever enters his commentary when discussing Rockies hitters.

He also noted that he'll open a file on his laptop for a player when he talks with them and gleans an interesting anecdote that he can relate on the air. Of course, they have to be short and to the point in order to get it in during an at bat and because of the transient nature of the listeners who are often in the car for a few minutes and picking up just short snippets.

One story he related was of Luis Gonzales of the Diamondbacks in left field at Wrigley when a fan came running down the aisle and dumped something onto the field. Gonzales, thinking at first he was target, moved under the basket and when security arrived realized that the man had dumped his father's ashes on the field per his father's request. After pleading his case the security guard said drly, "well, your Dad can stay but you have to go" before escorting him out of the park. He mentioned that the worst thing for him is to have to try and continue a story or finish a point across innings.

When asked about his use of statistics and the pregame notes provided by the teams he said that he would consider it amazing if they used even 20% of the information and he doesn't rigorously go through them each night. Having seen those pregame notes I'll attest to the fact that they're long indeed and contain lots of pretty useless information based on very small sample sizes along with a few gems. When I was at Kauffman Stadium I noticed that Paul Splittorf went through the notes and highlighted various things before going on the air. I saw the Rockies TV broadcaster doing the same last night before the Rockies/Dodgers game. He also said that during the broadcast they'll use BaseballReference.com (he called it Baseball Research but I'm pretty sure that's what he meant).

In talking about scouting and how reports are put together he also had collected some funny assessments made by scouts on scouting reports such as the one for one player that read, "sets low personal goals and consistently fails to achieve them".

During the question and answer time he was inevitably asked about winning at altitude. His take was familiar in that he thought the Rockies needed four or five big homerun hitters ala the "Blake Street Bombers" and that the Rockies simply need better players. This mantra has been repeated ad nauseum in the local papers this season. He was hopeful that Matt Holliday, Brad Hawpe, Todd Helton, and Ian Stewart would fill the bill. However, he also pointed out that a deep bullpen is important and pointed to this season where early on the bullpen blew game after game because it was filled with rookies and just not very good pitchers. Sadly, had the Rockies had their act together in April, they would still likely be in the race since they've had the best record in the NL West since June 1st. He then noted that the Rockies have said they're going to try and shore up the catching position along with the bullpen for next year. They also, of course, desparately need a centerfielder in case the Larry Bigbie experiment flops.

In all, he was a great speaker and I appreciated Ray Luurs being able to get him. This chapter is also having it's annual banquet in November where the SABR president, Jim Burris (assistant to Ford Frick and one-time GM of the Denver Bears), Jack Corrigan (Kingery's broadcast partner), and Ed Henderson (well known scout in the Denver area) would all be speaking. Most interesting, however, was the plan to put a plaque near Invesco field that points out the location Mile High Stadium as the home of professional baseball in Denver during much of the 20th century with hopes to put plaques at the other six locations in the area where pro baseball was played. Hopefully, the project will move forward as I can't think of a better project for SABR to engage in.

Have I ever mentioned that you should become a SABR memebr if you're not already? Just checking.

After the meeting adjourned around 3:30 I headed over to Coors Field where the gate behind centerfield allowing fans to watch batting practice in left field opens two hours prior to game time. The weather had turned threatening and so the Cubs weren't hitting on the field. So I took a leisurely stroll through the park before the entire park was made accessible at 4:30. After an excellent burger and fries at the restaurant in the right field corner of the park I headed to my seat behind home plate in the upper deck where the rest of the SABRites were to congregate. At game time it was 65 degrees and drizzling although the rain held off for the remainder of the game.

I took my seat in the "mile high row" that is marked as being 5,280 feet above sea level and soon 10 to 15 other members found their way as well. From the Cubs perspective the game was a bit lackluster. Aaron Cook was in control from the start used his off speed pitches effectively to keep the Cub hitters off balance in his 7 innings giving up one run, walking only one, while failing to strike out a batter. Glendon Rusch for the Cubs looked better than in his previous starts and pitched 6 innings giving up 2 earned runs and unearned run courtesy of a Todd Walker error in the first. With runs in the 7th and 8th the Cubs were able to get Walker on as the tying run in the 9th before Derrek Lee facing Brian Fuentes grounded weakly to Helton at first to end the game and sealing the Rockies 4-2 win.

Kerry Wood once again got into the game but didn't look quite as sharp. After falling behind to Dustan Mohr in the 8th the fellow SABR member sitting next to me remarked that Wood better not groove a fastball knowing that Mohr hits little that is not a fastball out over the plate. Of course he did and Mohr deposited it some 420 feet over the center field fence. It was great to sit with such knowledgable fans and enjoy the baseball discussion.

On Sunday the sun was bright and the weather warm as I packed the entire family, clad in our Cubs gear, in the car after church and headed to the park. We arrived just before the first pitch and took our seats down the first base line in the lower level. I was excited to point my two daughters attention to the fact that Greg Maddux, perhaps the last 300 game winner in a generation, was pitching for the Cubs. They nodded politely as their thoughts returned to dip'n dots. Just as well I suppose as Maddux didn't have it and gave up 6 runs in his 6 innings of work including homeruns to Mohr in the 4th and back to back homers by Matt Holliday and Garrett Atkins in the 5th.

The Cubs kept it close by getting five runs in the 5th off of rookie Jeff Francis on homeruns by Neifi Perez and Jeremy Burnitz. Of course my wife, who complains she never actually sees the action, was taking a walk with one of our daughters. But just as soon as the Cubs were back in it Scott Williamson gave up a three-run homer to Jorge Piedra in the 8th giving the rockies a 9-5 lead.

In the 9th Derrek Lee hit a 435 foot leadoff homerun off of Brian Fuentes (the blow the Cubs needed the night before) followed by a 400 foot homerun to right by Aramis Ramirez to make it 9-7. Over half the crowd of 40,000 were Cubs fans and so Coors Field was as lively as I've seen it this season. Unfortunately, Nomar Garciapara (who had hit two doubles and looked good returning from the groin injury), and Jeremy Burnitz made outs. Michael Barrett, however, hit a triple off the right field foul pole that Clint Hurdle briefly protested. Todd Walker then came in to pinch hit against the lefty Fuentes. The lack of a credible right-handed bat on the bench cost the Cubs as Walker did not have good swings and finally struck out to end the game.

The Cubs dropped two of three, which all but ended their hopes of a wild card spot. But still it was a great weekend of baseball.

Friday, September 02, 2005

The Rockies announced tonight that all day of game ticket sales for this Sunday's game (September 4th) against the Dodgers will go to the relief effort for hurricane Katrina victims.

So if you haven't had a chance to do your part yet, you can come out to Coors Field on Sunday afternoon, take in a ballgame, and help out at the same time. I'll be scoring the game for MLB.com so give me a wave in the middle of the lower press box.

For an upcoming article on The Hardball Times I did a little digging into pitch data from Retrosheet. What follows are the 473 players with more than 500 plate appearances from 2000-2004 and a few stats related to pitches.